I've always had the impression that Beck played a risky-ish type game offensively and physically (Rob Blake-esque in terms of style). I'll admit though, I haven't had the chance to do much research on him.

Just a quick aside: that may have been Beck's style in Colorado. He certainly generated a lot more even-strength offense for the Rockies than he did for the Rangers, which suggests a more risky style of play. I don't really know, but in New York he was the stay-at-home half of a pairing with Reijo Ruotsalainen, who was stylistically kind of like Boyle on crack. So I think Beck can be good as a stay-at-home guy if that is his role.

PK1: Johnson - Watson - Brind'Amour - Northcott
PK2: Leetch - Cook - Gretzky - Kurri
(these can be seen as 1A and 1B, depending on the game situation. One unit is obviously more offensively inclined than the other).

Thanks in advance. I'm open to any and all suggestions (special teams, captains, roster shuffling, etc), so have at!

First Line: Best player of all-time with his wingman, proven chemistry between the two and they form an explosive duo that will result in many offensive opportunities. The one complaint I have with the line is can Watson keep up with Gretzky and Kurri? I know he was offensively self-sufficient, and adds to the prowess of the line, but I think the former Oilers may not fit the style of linemates Watson is used to. All things considered, going to be a very hard line to defend against and will create many chances.

Second Line: I like how you have a lot of proven chemistry on your team, clearly Lafontaine and Mogilny worked well together. Northcott is a tough customer on the right side.

Third Line: Decent third line, Brind'Amour is a good third line centre, and wingers Lonsberry and Ellis are decent defensive wingers. Line can keep up with opposition's top scoring lines.

Fourth Line: Bernie Nicholls is an offensive dynamo, flanked by a crushing bodychecker in Ezinicki and a strong defensive left winger in Murdoch. Good intangible line, Nicholls' should be able to chip in a bit of offense in limited minutes.

Good group of forwards, top-six can be good offensively, bottom-six is tough.

First Pairing: Great first pairing, Leetch is a complete defenseman next to rough and tumble Ernie Johnson, who wasn't a bad offensive rearguard.

Second Pairing: Probably the strongest top-4 in the draft, Boucher is a great #3 and Jimmy Watson complements Buck nicely.

Third Pairing: I like Timonen on the bottom pairing, not completely aware of Lloyd Cook's game, but he appears as a pretty strong defensive defenseman. Timonen's all-around play is a nice fixture next to Cook.

Goaltending: Tiny Thompson is a good starter, had him last year and was a big fan. Middle of the pack starter, but will benefit from your strength on the back-end. Vachon in my opinion is the best backup after Rayner and Cheevers, so it's an all-around solid tandem.

Coaching: Cecil Hart had successful stints with the Habs, a good coach for your offensively dynamic squad.

Special Teams: PP - Good offensive group that is dangerous on the man advantage, question still remains with Watson and keeping up with his linemates. Gretzky's sole flaw was at faceoffs, so he may need his linemates to help him retrieve the puck after it's dropped.

PK - Strong PKers on the first unit, again Gretzky may encounter some big faceoffs, so it may be wise to have Brind'Amour taking the faceoff if it's in the Jacks' end. But Gretzky and Kurri will be able to capitalize on opportunities left by tired power play defenders.

Spares: Demitra (RIP) was one of my favorite players, he fits anywhere in your Top-6. Richards is a great two-way spare, he can fit anywhere in the lineup. Regehr and Kubina are solid defensive defensemen that will be nice pieces to have if you lose any of your big guns.

Summary: Pretty run and gun team, strong offensive players in the top-six. Should get desired chances in most matchups. Defense is strong, goaltending is above average. Another good entry by a divisional rival. Well done, arrbez.

Morrow over Lapointe? Smyth is actually gonna get relevant icetime, even on 4th line and 2nd PP, so I think he's fine.

Maybe.

Food for thought - there were 23 D-men (not counting Taylor as one) picked before Lapointe. Unless you think there's 9 D-men picked behind him who are better #1s (I don't see it, with guys like Howe, Langway and Chara leading the pack), he is actually a #1, even if in the bottom 25%. Or, we have to accept that there's just <24 'true #1s'. Or I was completely off my rocker when I picked him, but I don't think that's the case.

Pronovost went 39th (among the top #2s), Stapleton 66th (elite #3), Corbeau 99th (too soon, would make him elite #4), Harris 118th (ok #4), Ramage 124th (low end #4). I don't think I picked them all that too soon, really, so I'd say that's still damn well above average.

Unless ATD canon and general pick order is awfully wrong, Lapointe is a #1 (if clearly bottom-tier), and my defense overall is well above average.

ATD canon is definitely wrong sometimes, especially when it comes to defensemen, I believe. That being said, I don't think any of Lapointe, Pronovost or Stapleton were far off from their true value in the hierarchy of defensemen.

Thing about Lapointe is that he brings a lot of special teams value, but less at even strength, where I think he is one of the very low-end #1s. But yeah...Pronovost is an excellent #2 and Stapleton is a very strong puckmoving #3.

Second Line: Similar premise on the second line, but I like the defensive composure more. With three reputable two-way forwards, including Rick MacLeish who I thought about taking at 311 before you scooped him. I also believe this is a lethal scoring line that will also be tough to contain defensively.

Andy Bathgate was definitely not known for his defense. No idea where you got that idea. MacLeish was a neutral two-way player...not bad, but most of his best seasons were spent on a line with Barber and Dornhoefer where he had very few defensive responsibilities. Prentice is obviously a strong checker, but I would not call this a two-way line, per se.

Andy Bathgate was definitely not known for his defense. No idea where you got that idea. MacLeish was a neutral two-way player...not bad, but most of his best seasons were spent on a line with Barber and Dornhoefer where he had very few defensive responsibilities. Prentice is obviously a strong checker, but I would not call this a two-way line, per se.

Andy Bathgate was definitely not known for his defense. No idea where you got that idea. MacLeish was a neutral two-way player...not bad, but most of his best seasons were spent on a line with Barber and Dornhoefer where he had very few defensive responsibilities. Prentice is obviously a strong checker, but I would not call this a two-way line, per se.

John Flyers Fan isn't a fan of MacLeish's two way ability to say least, and trust his recollection of former Flyers.

First Line: Best player of all-time with his wingman, proven chemistry between the two and they form an explosive duo that will result in many offensive opportunities. The one complaint I have with the line is can Watson keep up with Gretzky and Kurri? I know he was offensively self-sufficient, and adds to the prowess of the line, but I think the former Oilers may not fit the style of linemates Watson is used to. All things considered, going to be a very hard line to defend against and will create many chances.

When you ask if Watson can keep up, are you talking about footspeed or in a general offensive sense?

If it's the latter, I'll certainly concede that Watson was more consistent than he was elite in terms of offense (aside from the year he came 2nd in goals). But he was quite fast, and he excelled as Syl Apps' regular LW on the 1947 and 1948 championship teams. He led the Leafs in scoring in the year after Apps retired as well, so I would assume he was playing with either Bentley or Kennedy. At any rate, he certainly has experience playing on a scoring line with an elite centre.

I really like his all-around game on that line. He was very strong defensively, played an aggressive game while staying out of the box, and was just a massive dude who (reports indicate) would absolutely pummel people when provoked.

He may have played with Barber too at other times, but I found an awful lot of references to Lonsberry on his LW when researching. I'm pretty sure it was Lonsberry in the championship years, at any rate. And I would assume it was Barber with Clarke.

This line resembles the line the one that made Trottier a legendary player in New York. Firsov plays the role of Bossy the sniper, and Broadbent plays the role of Gillies, the fighter and bodyguard. The line fits well together. It won't be as effective as the original because Firsov is no Bossy, but it should still be a very successful 1st line.

2nd Line

The Malkin-Bure combination is scary for a 2nd line. It has a lot of talent, speed, and strong skating to burn. Malkin can certainly get the puck to Bure to fire off his shots. Malkin's actual resume is underwhelming for a 2nd liner, but his skill is undeniable. Tikkanen is as a good of a defensive conscious as there is on a 2nd line here(except for the out of place Bob Gainey). But, he can only do so much. Malkin and Bure are both pretty big minuses defensively at an ATD level, and one player can't make up for all that, no matter how good he may be defensively.

3rd Line

You've got a nice little blend of everything here on this line. They all have a little bit of offensive ability, Kilrea and Goring were solid two-way players, and Verbeek was a good agitator. They can serve as a checking line, and an energy line as well. Verbeek holds it back from being a pure, shutdown checking line though.

4th Line

You've got a weird mix of players here. Shack is an enforcer, which is good because you're going to need somebody to keep from Tikkanen getting his face punched in because of all his antics. So, he does serve a purpose here. Berenson is a good two-way player, and I have no idea why Deadmarsh gets picked in the ATD. Actually, I do know why, I just don't agree with it.

Forwards Overall

This is a group that should score a decent amount of goals. The top 6 has a lot of talent, and the bottom 6 supplies mostly grit and two-way play. They're a little lacking in terms of overall defensive ability, and could be exploited.

First Pairing

I'm one of the biggest Pronger fans around here. He's a very good #1 defenseman that can do everything. I like that you paired him with a guy that has a lot of speed in Zubov because that's the biggest issue Pronger has. It never held him back, but having a guy that could skate next to him helps. I find Zubov a bit overrated, but they work chemistry-wise.

Second Pairing

Even though these guys played together in real life, I'm not a huge fan of them as a 2nd pairing here. Davydov is a legit 2nd pairing guy, but I think Kuzkin is more of a #5. Davydov is either a below average #3 or very good #4. They fit chemistry wise, but lag behind a bit in terms of 2nd pairings.

Third Pairing

I would consider switching Hollett and Kuzkin. Munro is a serviceable bottom pairing defenseman.

Defense Overall

Like your forwards, a fairly offensively inclined group. They won't be bad in their own zone, but they won't be elite. A good group of puck movers here.

Goalie

Connell is a passable #1, but is definitely on the lower end.

Coach

Bob Johnson is the perfect coach for this team. With offensively inclined forwards and a good group of puck moving defensemen, his style should get the most out of all these guys. This team will not have much trouble scoring goals.

PP

The first PP is absolutely loaded with talent, but I think you need to balance things out because your 2nd unit looks horrific. There would not be enough puck to go around on the first unit with Malkin's puck possession game, Trottier, and two snipers in Firsov and Bure. You don't really have a net presence on that first unit either. I would try something like:

Firsov-Trottier-Broadbent
Zubov-Hollett

You can try to pass off Broadbent as a net presence because of his power forward characteristics. Then for the 2nd unit:

Verbeek/Berenson/Kilrea-Malkin-Bure
Pronger-Kuzkin

Berenson or Kilrea are probably more offensively talented, but Verbeek was a guy that made a living in front of the crease, despite how small he was.

PK

You don't draft Pronger and not have him on your first PK unit. Put him on there, and take Kasparaitis off(who isn't even in your lineup). Do that, and the first unit looks very good. For the 2nd unit, I'd put Berenson in there somewhere instead of Broadbent. I don't think we have any documentation of Broadbent killing penalties. I'd also find a way to put Trottier in there.

Trottier-Berenson
Davydov-Munro

That's what I would go with for a 2nd unit.

Overall

This team should score some goals. The top 6 has a lot of talent, and the defense is a good puck-moving group. But with a below average #1 goalie and a forward group and defense that isn't great defensively, they could be exploited.

Was unsure whether Bure would be more lethal on PP or PK....he scored his share of PK floater goals, but I figured that won't fly when every roster's ATD-calibre.

And the reason why I used Pahlsson and Kasparaitis in special teams is, well....if I'm not using them on special teams, when would they ever get used? Both made a name for himself through different means, and both were well known league-wide for what they brought to the table. Since I can't see a way to get them on the main roster, why not utilize them off the bench in special situations? I didn't use Yushkevich at all; I guess I can't use everyone, but I just thought this would be a way to get the extras more involved, without subtracting from overall efficiency.

The issue here is that you are only allowed to dress 18 skaters and 2 goalies at a time, and having those 2 on the PK makes it look like you are dressing 20 skaters

Andy Bathgate was definitely not known for his defense. No idea where you got that idea. MacLeish was a neutral two-way player...not bad, but most of his best seasons were spent on a line with Barber and Dornhoefer where he had very few defensive responsibilities. Prentice is obviously a strong checker, but I would not call this a two-way line, per se.

Bathgate was physical, guess that's where I got that from. I didn't mean to say he plays well defensively. I was always under the impression MacLeish could get by as a two-way player. The line has some defensive skill and some good checking is probably a better way to phrase it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arrbez

When you ask if Watson can keep up, are you talking about footspeed or in a general offensive sense?

If it's the latter, I'll certainly concede that Watson was more consistent than he was elite in terms of offense (aside from the year he came 2nd in goals). But he was quite fast, and he excelled as Syl Apps' regular LW on the 1947 and 1948 championship teams. He led the Leafs in scoring in the year after Apps retired as well, so I would assume he was playing with either Bentley or Kennedy. At any rate, he certainly has experience playing on a scoring line with an elite centre.

I really like his all-around game on that line. He was very strong defensively, played an aggressive game while staying out of the box, and was just a massive dude who (reports indicate) would absolutely pummel people when provoked.

Thanks for the review!

I honestly didn't know that much about Watson, one impression I was under is that he wasn't a great skater. It might've been seventies ATD 2010 bio, there wasn't really anything that commented on his speed. But in that case, maybe he is a stronger skater than what I initially had thought.

I honestly didn't know that much about Watson, one impression I was under is that he wasn't a great skater. It might've been seventies ATD 2010 bio, there wasn't really anything that commented on his speed. But in that case, maybe he is a stronger skater than what I initially had thought.

He was so big that he probably looked slow out there, but anything I've seen talking about his skating says he was quite good at it.

Quote:

He had a very deceptive style of skating and at times appeared to be hardly moving and then would break like a flash. - Trail of the Stanley Cup volume 2

Quote:

He patrolled the wing with a strong skating stride, had a hard shot and was a good finisher for a playmaker like Apps. - Maple Leaf Legends

Quote:

He was a deceptively fast skater who was used to check the opposition's top scorers, but had a good scoring touch of his own. - Total Hockey

Quote:

Fast and strong, the bulky left winger possessed great offensive and defensive ability - Wings of Fire

Quote:

He was known for his offensve ability complemented by deceptive speed, physical strength and capable defensive skills - Hockey Hall of Fame

Quote:

Watson was a good skater who had a powerful shot - The Game We Knew: Hockey In the 50s

Quote:

Watson's very bigness gives him somewhat of a lazy, ambling appearance as he patrols his left side in effecive fashion, but when he gets the puck he picks up top speed in about a stride and a half and presents a pretty picture as he whirlwinds towards the enemy's net. - Globe and Mail, 1951-12-2

All harvested from seventieslord's bio. But given that he was such a big player and primarily a goalscorer, I can definitely see how you might assume he was a plodding winger who just crashed the net for goals. I probably would have too if I hadn't researched the guy.

Middleton logs more ice time than any Bruin except defense-men Park and Ray Bourque. He works the power play, kills penalties and protects late leads. The opposition keys on Middleton, too, because he's Boston's only genuine threat to "create" a goal: for the most part the other Bruins qualify as muckers, members of the so-called Lunchpail A.C., who score on goal-mouth tip-ins, rebounds or unintentional deflections.

September 27, 1984, Lewiston Daily Sun, Middleton himself:

Quote:

I don't consider myself a slow starter, but I do play better as I get more ice time.

So I feel pretty confident he'll be okay with the ice time.

Re Doan: Doan has killed about a minutes worth of penalties per game since '08-'09, and before then from 02-08 was always between 1:30-2 mins a game. All this while being the most dangerous offensive weapon on the Coyotes, meaning they had to limit his PK time.

I've been working on finding Doan killing penalties in the WCs, and have found some things that I like that describe his play there but I am as of yet still unable to find actual physical evidence that he did it:

Pierre Lebrun, Canadian Press, May 11, 2003. Shows us he's willing to sacrifice his body, which is of course an important of PKing:

Quote:

Fit in nicely on the checking unit with Draper and Kirk Maltby and sacrificed his body on every shift

I can't find any sort of line combos or anything like that for the years he was in the WCs, but either way, the guy's game is suited to PK, and he's proven that he can do it for the Coyotes despite the fact that they need his scoring. I think that should be enough.

Jack Adams is a pretty average coach here. *He liked smashmouth physical hockey, which really isn't the team you drafted for the most part, but I don't see it being all that big a deal.

Leadership is okay. *Bourque is a fine C and Cashman a solid A. *Not sure about Boucher's leadership qualities, is this just a case of giving a letter to your best players? *

Forwards:*

Frank Boucher is a great two-way center who probably should be considered an equal to Sakic and Yzerman in all things except leadership. *His wingers are so-so. *Glenn Anderson was a great clutch scorer who loved going to the net, but he never finished top 10 in NHL scoring despite a very favorable team situation. *I'd like him better on a second line than a first. *Roy Conacher is a better first liner, though I think he's gotten a bit overrated here when people look at his goal totals. *He's a fine finisher for Boucher, but his low assist totals say that he won't be very useful in creating combination plays with Frank (something the Bread Line was known for). *The line should nonetheless be effective at both ends of the ice, though they could run into a little trouble if faced with a very physical defense. *Anderson is fine as a puck winner, but I'm not sure what he can do if teams really get rough with Frank Boucher. *

You really went hard to build a line around Dionne, and it works for the most part. *Dionne himself is a great second line center in the regular season and we've gone over his playoff record already... *Gord Roberts is a better version of Charlie Simmer, the guy who went to the net for Dionne and Cashman is a stronger, meaner version of Dave Taylor, so the line should have good chemistry.

Primeau is a good big two-way center. *I still think he might be best as a 4th liner, but he can pass as a 3rd liner. *When I used MacKell as a LW last time, I accepted that he would provide very little offense if not used as center but would be decent defensively. *Good is a good two-way 3rd liner. *Is Primeau a good enough playmaker to get the most out of him?*

I think Troy Murray is kind of overrated - he seems like the first time in history when offense played a big role in deciding the Selke. *Career checker has a career year offensively and is rewarded with the Selke. *Other than his one big offensive year, he never came close to the award again. *Don't get me wrong - he's a solid 4th liner, but Mike Richards has to have surpassed him by now, right? *Bonin is a solid bit unspectacular 4th liner. Let me guess - you drafted Houle because Bobby Hull is in the same division? *I considered him for the same reason and I think his ability to chip in offensively has been underrated here - he's not great, but he can do it.

Overall, a solid group. *The 1-2 punch of Boucher-Dionne is strong, and the rest of the forwards, while pretty average as a whole, compliment them well. *I'd like the forwards better if you could somehow get MacKell at C, * *but he's acceptable at LW.

Defense

Bourque is one of true minute munchers of the ATD and is excellent at all situations. *Stanley is a below average but still acceptable #2. *He's big and strong with a good first pass. *He's really slow, but with Bourque as his partner, that weakness wont be exploited very often. *Definitely an above average pairing.

Second pairing seems below average to me. *I know EB and others disagree about Wentworth. *But I see a guy who if it weren't for a single line in the semi-discredited Ultimate Hockey would not be drafted as high as he is. *His All Star record is more that of a #4 I think, but then All star votes are not everything. *I would prefer Bergman as a high end #5 than a #4 but he's acceptable there. *This pairing should be very solid in their own zone and capable of getting the puck to the forwards, but won't provide much offensive support. *

Dutton is a hard guy to get a read on, but he was very physical and a leader and is probably a very good #5. *Owen is even harder to get a read on. *He's drafted for his point totals and nothing more, yet he may ha e spent time at forward, so how legit are his point totals? *

Bobby Rowe is an excellent spare, who really deserves to be a bottom pairing guy. *

Goaltending

I'm glad Belfour now goes about where he should. *In my mind, he really isn't all that far behind Martin Brodeur among goalies I've seen. *He's a workhorse too, so Rollins won't see much time. *Will Rollins be content to be a benchwarmer? *If he challenges Belfour too much, Eddie will have a meltdown (the only disadvantage to having Eddie in goal). *

Special teams:

Ray Bourque is an elite PP QB and Frank Boucher is good down low. *The rest of the first unit is adequate.

Marcel Dionne seems a bit wasted on the second PP, but obviously he's a great asset here. *Gord Roberts is solid. *I think Cashman and Bergman are pretty weak PP players.

Your PK defensemen are strong, despite my feelings about Wentworth potentially being overrated based off a single quote from a single book. *

MacKell is a great short handed threat and Murray can kill penalties. I'm not sure about Bonin and Houle on the PK - they were good defensive players at even strength, but that does t always translate into penalty killing. *Houle might be better on a second unit and Bonin perhaps not at all? *Maybe I'm getting a poor read on them though.

Overall:

Great top end talent with a solid but unspectacular team built around them (with all the trading up you did, you had to expect that, right?). *Boucher - Dionne is a great 1-2 punch at center and the rest of the forward group is adequate. *Bourque is an elite #1, which props up an otherwise unspectacular (but not bad) defense corps. *Coaching and goaltending won't win or lose you games. * This is a team with no standout weaknesses that will go as far as their "Big 3" (Bourque, Boucher, Dionne) will take them.

I personally think that Mario, although at times a flake and a smoker and a guy who sometimes needed his teammates to lace up his skates for him, was a tremendous leader on the ice. I doubt that Mario gave a lot of pep talks in between periods or taught a lot of rookies good practice habits, but on the ice he had a will to win and a belief in his own ability which is very rare in any athlete, and his teams bought into that. He was simply a magnetic personality. I think your leadership is good.

Your first pairing is average to slightly below-average at even strength, IMO. Lapointe is a strong special teams player, but at even strength, he is a bottom-end #1, but that is counterbalanced by a very strong #2 in Pronovost. I agree with Devil that Lapointe - Pronovost are less than ideally matched, but it is not that big of a problem. I think the 2nd pairing is above average. Stapleton is a strong #3, IMO (I credit his first couple of seasons in the WHA because he had already established a high level of play in the NHL and was clearly still at his peak), and Harris is an average to above-average #4. Overall, a nice second pairing.

I think Ramage is a good #5, but I would not want him on a 2nd pairing. Ditto Bert Corbeau.

I agree with you on Mario, he's a great lead by example on the ice captain. But I think you could use some more "rah rah" hard working types with As, like he actually had in Pittsburgh when they were winning. I guess he does have lots of depth players like Ramage and Smythe with leadership, so it's probably not a big deal

Re Doan: Doan has killed about a minutes worth of penalties per game since '08-'09, and before then from 02-08 was always between 1:30-2 mins a game. All this while being the most dangerous offensive weapon on the Coyotes, meaning they had to limit his PK time.

I've been working on finding Doan killing penalties in the WCs, and have found some things that I like that describe his play there but I am as of yet still unable to find actual physical evidence that he did it:

Pierre Lebrun, Canadian Press, May 11, 2003. Shows us he's willing to sacrifice his body, which is of course an important of PKing:

I can't find any sort of line combos or anything like that for the years he was in the WCs, but either way, the guy's game is suited to PK, and he's proven that he can do it for the Coyotes despite the fact that they need his scoring. I think that should be enough.

I remember Doan and Draper were Canada's first two forwards on the PK in the 2006 Olympics.